About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
by using the normal criminal procedures. >> because lindsey graham and others say, yes, he should be tried as a u.s. citizen, should be tried in a u.s. civilian court, but that can await this process of doing some serious interrogation of him and designating him as an enemy combatant in the meantime. all of this is moot right now, because as you know, yesterday, he was formally given his miranda rights and a judge magistrate at his bed side with a court-appointed attorney, a public defender. this is moot as the obama administration has made its decision. is lindsey graham on sound legal ground, saying he should be tried in a civilian court, but held and questioned as an enemy combatant? >> i think the only fair answer to that question is we don't know. because it's never been done before in american history to have some sort of hybrid combatant and criminal proceeding. we do know from jake tapper's reporting, there was an interrogation of tsavraev. and he did disclose his position that there was no broader conspiracy here. just him and his pressure. it seems like the justice department and
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
countries -- cases in this country. today senator lindsey graham urged the white house to reconsider its decision. >> i'm asking this administration to leave on the table the option if the effort warrants to designate this individual as an enemy combatant. the ability to have access to this suspect without a lawyer present together intelligence about a future attack is absolutely essential to our national security. >> democratic congressman adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee is "outfront" and he is also a former federal prosecutor. we now that dzhokhar, suspect number two, has been read his miranda rights. sow won't be designated as an enemy combatant. but if he was labelled an enemy combatant, he wouldn't have been entitled to a lawyer and a jury trial. they could have asked him a lot of other questions without a lawyer present that may or may not be relevant to national security. now why did they make this decision not to go for enemy combatant status? do they think they have so much evidence in this case that they can go ahead with the civilian jury trial and the
understand senator lindsey graham correctly, is what he was proposing is by making him an enemy combatant, that he would be turned over to the military to be questioned for a period, 30 days, and whatever he said during that 30 days could not be used against him when he gets turned back over for a federal trial. i think that's what he said. you know, which is different than what i think some people thought he meant originally. but anyway, i also thought it was interesting that the defendant is, according to the magistrate, and we have a copy of the transcript from the court hearing today, is that he is alert, mentally competent, and lucid. they did talk to him a little bit. i guess they might have got some information out of him the last day or so, would you expect? >> you know, i think what we have to do here, greta, as you are pointing out, is to separate the whole notion of what would be admissible in a criminal trial. i think there's very little doubt that he will be found guilty in a criminal trial; that he very likely will receive the death penalty. there's a lot of evidence out the
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)